The Real Cost of Tap to Pay with Apple or Samsung

Let’s ignite the nascent Tap to Pay market

While Apple continues to move full steam ahead with the development of its Tap to Pay offering—with beta testing started recently at the Apple Park Visitor Center --there has been nothing ?public yet from other mobile phone manufacturers such as Samsung In response to Apple's move.

?Google Wallet was relaunched this week with no sign from the company that they are interested in developing a payment acceptance feature for their phones which enables Tap to Pay.

?Pulling the rug from underneath Samsung

Not everybody remembers this, but Samsung was an early investor in Mobeewave—the startup acquired by Apple to power their upcoming Tap to Pay—signaling that the company has an interest in contactless payment acceptance and might be quietly seeking a solution that ties the users to its devices. ?

?With Android representing over 70% of mobile phone users globally , everybody expects that Apple’s Tap to Pay launch will inevitably create an instant race to provide an equivalent payment acceptance solution for Android. While this is important for myriad reasons, the most glaring one is that most micro to midsize merchants simply can’t afford Apple’s phones. ZDNet calculates that the rumored iPhone subscription would cost approximately $600 per year — which is comparable or more expensive than traditional terminals.

?An Android Tap to Pay feature will be an important piece in leveling the playing field not only for micro and small merchants, who cannot afford the high cost of Apple devices, but also for larger retailers with the many Android smart devices they already have—including Zebra and Honeywell handheld devices to the beautiful large screens from Elo Touch. This is one of the many reasons why I believe that Apple’s Tap to Pay may not be an instant success for Apple.

?Chaining you to their device

The reason that Mobeeave was attractive for both Apple and Samsung is simple: the product did not have a real security mechanism of its own. Given this, the device maker—Apple or Samsung—can tie the product and the user to their own device. This enables them to control many aspects of the relationship with the end-user, including pushing newer devices and imposing mandatory updates and software upgrades. This is a hefty price to pay If you are not willing to get seriously disintermediated, losing control and customer relationship to yet another device maker?

?This why I really believe that Samsung will be looking into acquiring another player that is weak on security and needs to rely heavily on Samsung devices, its hardware and proprietary Knox security.

?The good news

A solution like i-Accept, which is already being used by acquirers and payments processing providers around the world, is the only one in the market that was designed to give you full control of your systems and keep you close to your customers, while allowing deployment on the Android devices you already have, without being beholden to a device maker.

We are able to this because at our core, MagicCube is a security company that does not have to depend on a device maker to enable you to accept payments securely, easily, and cost effectively.

?Apple’s Tap to Pay launch may ignite the sector. Samsung might buy one of the many smaller players that do not command any real security capabilities, proving that the need exists, like the tide that changes to raise all boats. If you want to get your feet wet, come talk to us. We are in the water already and our boat is powered by unrivaled technology.